Reviewers

Narain publishers Pvt. Ltd (NPPL) are publishers of print and online open access books and online, peer reviewed, open access, journals in area of Science, Medicine, Social science, psychology, Art and humanities. The articles and books published by NPPL will have instant and free online access. Backed by an experienced core group, NPPL envisions providing speedy and quality publications to expand the horizon of knowledge and a platform for sharing the knowledge.

NPPL has developed an electronic manuscript handling system for the journals and eBooks to help the authors and reviewers by providing a platform that will be easy to use and cost effective, that will also eliminate the need to use the costly postal system and will considerably reduce the manuscript handling time.

Selection of reviewers for a particular manuscript is the responsibility of the Editorial assistant and is based on expertise, reputation, specific recommendations of authors and academic editors.

As part of our review procedure, we seek consent of potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. It should be borne in mind that even these initial mails contain confidential information, which should be regarded as such.

The purpose of the review is to provide the editors with an expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript under consideration. The review should also supply authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers. Although confidential comments to the editors are respected, any remarks that might help to strengthen the paper should be directed to the authors themselves. The review should answer the following questions:

What are the main findings of the paper?

Are the findings properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

Do the experimental data support the findings? If not, what other evidence is required?

Is this paper of interest? And why? What is their significance?

Further directions?

Does the manuscript adhere to instructions to authors?

In the case of manuscripts is worthy of publication, the reviewer should provide the following:

Is the manuscript written clearly enough that it is understandable to non-specialists? If not, how could it be improved?

Have the authors provided adequate proof for their claims without overselling them?

Is the review of literature fair and complete? Are there previous reports that have been omitted? HAs the authors been selective in reporting their results?

Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments could be reproduced?

NPPL encourages authors to publish details of the procedures employed and report any additional information that they may deem necessary to support their data. As this is an online publication there is no word restriction. Authors may even upload their complete dataset if they wish so.

The NPPL review process is strictly confidential and should be treated as such. It is suggested that no one directly or indirectly involved with the research should be consulted before submitting review report or thereafter. It is also suggested that reviewer should not use the information gained by review of a manuscript for their benefit, especially before the manuscript is published. Even after publication only the published data can be used as per the NPPL licensing agreement.

The journal follows single blinding which means that the reviewers will know whose manuscript they are reviewing however the authors won’t know who has reviewed their manuscript. If a reviewer wants his comments published along with the manuscript he will have to sign the report and declare that he wants his comments published.

Though NPPL tries to omit reviewers who may have a potential conflict of interests, however it is possible that the manuscript may go to a reviewer who has a conflict. We suggest that such request may be denied by the reviewer. Reviewers are required to declare their potential conflict of interests at the time of submitting the report.